atrielienz

Yeah. I'm not sure it matters much that their content is similar. Using the DMCA system for something it clearly wasn't intended for and then furthering that with what is ultimately a frivolous lawsuit (when you're both copying a rich and famous influencer yourselves) is ridiculous especially with the Amazon algorithm giving them similar or the same items to schill to the public. This lawsuit is dumb (regardless of the minutiae). But it highlights how much of the algorithm builds these people's "brands".

This cat (like all cats) knows they're beautiful and you can tell by the look.

Desiccant is fairly inexpensive and available at places like Walmart or your local hardware store. I'd recommend that for 24 hours or so.

I didn't get good grades. I was never medicated even though I was diagnosed. I work on planes and to me my ADHD doesn't need to be medicated. But I might be wrong, ya know? Something to think about.

Neva and Plucky Squire. Oh and Islets.

Merry Christmas. Watch out for Jack Frost Anomalies.

What makes one thing legitimate and the other thing not? What is it borrowing exactly? You've very poorly argued this point in every section of this thread.

You appear to have a (subjective) idea of what science fiction is, and you're trying to force it on the rest of us to prove a point to a group of people who banned you probably not because you were annoying but more because you said something fairly inflammatory on purpose and they assumed you were trolling.

Is there a reason philosophical and cerebral science fiction is more legitimate to you than the alternative? Also, do you not see how the first time a trope is used for the purposes of telling a science fiction story, it usually does push the bounds of understanding and is therefore likely to be repeated, yes even in what you've deemed less legitimate "cowboy" science fiction?

One of these is a thing that deliberately makes a person think about the possibilities of the bounds of our world and that's good. But the other often uses the dynamic between the people involved in the story to make us think about things like our humanity, or lack thereof, and what makes us human.

Each of these is valid storytelling and valid Sci-fi, but you seem to only think one of them is legitimate and that suggests to me that you don't value what you don't know about yourself or your fellow human beings which sounds to me like a failing on your part. Just because it doesn't make you think doesn't mean it isn't thought provoking. It just means it's of little to no interest or value to you. We have already stated that this is subjective.

Thank you for this. I'm doing this. This is awesome.

I do this too. I bought them for work but I use them with steam os (Bazzite) too.

I will get stuff because that's what my parents own. They don't have large amounts of liquid cash but my dad owns his house and my mom owns lots of antique furniture (passed down from her family) and jewelry (she has a problem with buying shiny gold and silver pieces). But there's also 8 of us kids so the likelihood is that we each won't get much in the way of any real inheritance even from what they do have.

It's easier for most everyone involved to just let them live out their lives using what they have earned along the way. So I told my parents pretty much the same thing. Take care of yourselves. We'll be alright.

This may not be factually wrong but it's not well written, and probably not written by a person with a good understanding of how Gen AI LLM'S actually work. This is an algorithm that generates the next most likely word or words based on its training data set using math. It doesn't think. It doesn't understand. It doesn't have dopamine receptors in order to "feel". It can't view "feedback" in a positive or negative way.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, it is possible that what is happening here is that they trained the LLM on a data set that has a less than center bias. If it responds to a query with something generated statistically from that data set, and the people who own the LLM don't want it to respond with that particular response they will add a guardrail to prevent it from using that response again. But if they don't remove that information from the data set and retrain the model, then that bias may still show up in responses in other ways. And I think that's what we're seeing here.

You can't train a Harry Potter LLM on both the Harry Potter Books and Movies and the Harry Potter online fanfiction available and then tell it not to respond to questions about canon with fanfiction info if you don't either separate and quarantine that fanfiction info, or remove it and retrain the LLM on a more curated data set.

https://apnews.com/article/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killing-luigi-mangione-terrorism-law-7fcb28dcc0106c980b6ecf4aa9cf682f

That doesn't mean they can't be tried as terrorists. The main problem here is actually whether or not the facts of the crime actually allow for a terrorism charge. Fact is, he had a manifesto (see ideological goals), and the shooting was a violent criminal act.

According to the FBI that's all it takes. It may also be what is lacking in the case of some school shooters.

While I am generally on the side of "CEO FAFO", I recognize that the problem here is that the FBI and the laws they follow are flawed (probably deliberately) in such a way that they only target those who target the wealthy.

Shooting up a school is an act of terrorism if you do it because you're targeting a soft target in an attempt to hurt the local, state or federal government or you're religiously motivated etc. But not if you were bullied.

There's been plenty of over 18 mass shooters who also haven't been charged with terrorism. And with each one there's people who will say they don't want the US to become more of a police state because they believe that counterterrorism techniques (which we use internationally) shouldn't be used against the general population.

The federal government has a habit of overstepping the rights and freedoms of the general public any time they feel like they are under attack. We saw this with 9/11 and the Patriot act. So I can see their reasoning even if I don't agree that mass shooters should be considered terrorists under the law.